PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE 

1778-1878 



BY 



ANNIE H. ABEL 

11 



Reprinted from the Annual Report of the American Historical Association 
for 1907, Volume I, pages 87-104 



WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1909 



VI. PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE, 1778-1878. 



By ANNIE H. ABEL, 

Associate Professor in the Woman^s College of Baltimore. 



PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE, 1778-1878. 



By Annie H. Abel. 



The recent admission to statehood of Oklahoma, with its mixture 
of red, black, and white inhabitants, marks the definite abandonment 
of an idea that had previously been advocated at intervals for more 
than a hundred years. This idea was the erection of a State, exclu- 
sively Indian, that should be a bona fide member of the American 
Union. Its first appearance dates back to the treaty of Fort Pitt, 
negotiated with the Delawares in 1778. In the sixth article of that 
document" commissioners from the Continental Congress stipulated 
that friendly tribes might, with the approval of Congress, enter the 
Confederacy and form a State, of which the Delawares should be the 
head. The permission thus granted was entirely a matter of military 
expediency; yet it was never acted upon, very probably because the 
Indians had no adequate conception of its significance, were unpre- 
pared to take the initiative, and the white men disinclined to do so. 

Seven years later the twelfth article of the treaty of Hopewell * 
outlined an arrangement, somewhat similar in its ultimate purpose, 
for the Cherokees, who were told that they should " have the right 
to send a deputy of their choice whenever they " should " think fit to 
Congress." The commissioners who inserted this provision laid no 
stress whatever upon it in the official journal of their proceedings/ 
consequently we are obliged to infer that no great departure from 
existing practices was in contemplation. The Indians seem not to 
have thought it worth while to make any at all, perchance because 
the arrangement may not have meant anything more than the occa- 
sional sending of an agent to represent their interests, and certainly 
would not necessarily have elevated them as a community to state- 
hood but only as individuals to citizenship, a condition of affairs 
that may have been suggested by the proposition of the would-be 
" State of Franklin " earlier in the same year.^ 

In 1787 Alexander McGillivray^ a half-breed, a chief, and decidedly 
the most influential man among the Creeks, originated a scheme of 
his own for effecting a change in the political status of his people. 
He communicated it to James White, the United States superin- 

°- 1 United States Statutes at Large, 14. 
6 Journal of Congress, IV : 628. • 

American State Papers, Indian Affairs, I : 40-44. 
«* American Historical Review, VIII : 283. 

89 



90 



AMERICAK HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



tendent for the southern district, who thought it " something so singu- 
lar " that he should " be excused for relating it circumstantially " to 
General Knox. It was as follows : " Notwithstanding that as the 
guardian of the Indian rights I prompt them to defend their lands, 
yet I must declare I look upon the United States as our most natural 
allies. Two years I waited before I would seek for the alliance I 
have formed. I was compelled to it. I could not but resent the 
greedy encroachments of the Georgians, to say nothing of their 
scandalous and illiberal personal abuse. Notwithstanding which I 
will now put it to the test whether they or myself entertain the most 
generous sentiments of respect for Congress. If that honorable body 
can form a body to the southward of the Altamaha, I will be the 
first to take the oath of allegiance thereto; and in return to the 
Georgians for yielding to the United States that claim, I will obtain 
a regular and peaceable grant of the lands on the Oconee, on which 
they have deluded people to settle under pretense of grants from the 
Indians, you yourself have seen how ill founded."^ Presumably 
McGillivray had in mind an Indian State, but his suggestion proved 
just as futile as those that had gone before. 

The basis for these various plans and, indeed, for some that pre- 
ceded and for many that followed lay in a tacit acknowledgment 
of Indian sovereignty. Each European nation that gained a foot- 
hold in the New World had to reckon with the Indians, and often 
against its better judgment to treat with them as independent 
entities. The only way to insure its own safety and its own advance- 
ment was to seek their alliance, guarantee their integrity, and admit 
their territorial claims, even while asserting a preemptive right of its 
own. The various projects for an Indian neutral belt from 1761 to 
1814 were all in line with the doctrine of Indian sovereignty, as were 
also the several schemes of Vergennes,^ Milfort,^ and Bowles.*^ More- 
over, in those years when the Indian tribes could figure so promi- 
nently and effectively as friend or foe their rights were at a 
premium, especially during the Revolutionary and Confederacy eras 
and during the critical period that followed, when Spain, France, 
and Great Britain, taking advantage of the weakness of the United 
States, were independently intriguing for the control of the Missis- 
sippi Valley. 

With the final settlement of that question as determined by the 
purchase of Louisiana came a new suggestion for the adjustment of 
Indian relations with the United States Government. This compre- 
hended the setting aside of the larger part of the Louisiana territory 
for Indian occupancy, involving the removal and colonization of 

« American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1 : 21. 

^ Atlantic Monthly, vol. 93, p. 809 ; American Historical Review, X : 253. 
« Atlantic Monthly, vol. 93, p. 811. 
«*Ihid., p. 681. 



PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE, 1^78-1878. 



91 



all the eastern tribes that could be induced to exchange lands and to 
emigrate." The plan of colonization was not a new one, since 
General Knox had formulated it years before,^ but that of removal 
perforce was, there having previously been no government land that 
could be used for the purpose. It is very doubtful whether, in thus 
providing a home for the Indians, Jefferson had in mind an Indian 
Territory of such a character as would develop into an Indian State. 
He spoke of a temporary asylum only ; yet he had the opportunity to 
plan a great State since the objections that stood in the way of any 
such political edifice within the chartered limits of the old Thirteen 
did not hold in the West. The Federal Government could do as it 
pleased with territory that it had bought with federal funds. Not- 
withstanding this, the plan came to nothing. Even if it had been 
enthusiastically advocated by the party in power, it is problematic 
whether the Indians, as strongly intrenched as they were in their 
ancestral domains, could have been induced to move. Some of them 
asked instead for citizenship,^ and certain statesmen, notably William 
H. Crawford,^ supported the idea. In his opinion incorporation was 
the only feasible plan. 

During Monroe's second term Indian affairs in Georgia reached 
a climax, whereupon the administration, as the best way out of a most 
serious difficulty, revived ^ the old plans of removal and colonization 
and later improved upon them to this extent, that it advised the 
introduction of a governmental system. Taking various documents 
together, departmental reports and presidential messages, we gather 
that this was its general scheme, the formation of tribal districts with 
a civil administration in each and the imion of the whole in prospect. 
Eventual statehood was not specifically mentioned, but, by Calhoun at 
least, was broadly hinted at,^ and would have been the natural out- 

« Ford's Jefferson, VIII : 241-249. 

* American State Papers, Indian Affairs, 1 : 52-54. 

c American State Papers, Foreign Relations, 1 : 72 ; Ttie Writings of Thos. Jefferson, 
library edition, XVI : 434-435. 

" American State Papers, Indian Affairs, II : 27, 28. 

« Special Message, Marcti 30, 1824, Richardson II : 234-237. 

T Annual message, December 7, 1824, Ibid. 261 ; special message, January 27, 1825, 
ibid., 280-283. 

1, * * ^ There ought to be the strongest and most solemn assurance that the 
country given them should be theirs, as a permanent home for themselves and their pos- 
terity, without being disturbed by the encroachments of our citizens. To such assur- 
ance, if there should be added a system by which the government, without destroying 
their independence, would gradually unite the several tribes under a simple but en- 
lightened system of government, and laws formed on the principles of our own, and to 
which, as their own people would partake in it, they would, under the influence of the 
contemplated improvement, at no distant day, become prepared, the arrangements which 
have been proposed would prove to the Indians and their posterity a permanent blessing. 
It is believed that if they could be assured that peace and friendship would be main- 
tained among the several tribes ; that the advantages of education which they now 
enjoy would be extended to them ; that they should have permanent and solemn guaranty 
for their possessions, and receive the countenance and aid of the government for the 
gradual extension of its privileges to them, there would be among all the tribes a dis- 
position to accord with the views of the government * * *." (Gales and Seaton's 
Register, I, Appendix, pp. 57-59.) 



92 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



come. Who originated the idea it is impossible to determine. The 
chances are the Eev. Jedidiah Morse deserves some credit, for his 
observations in the Northwest and his investigations into Indian con- 
ditions generally had led him three years before to say most posi- 
tively : " Let this territory be reserved exclusively for Indians, in 
which to make the proposed experiment of gathering into one body 
as many of the scattered and other Indians as choose to settle here, to 
be educated, become citizens, and in due time to be admitted to all 
the privileges common to other territories and States in the 
Union * * 

Congressional action along this same line is rather interesting as 
showing how clearl}^ defined was the idea that the Indian country to 
the westward should constitute a regular Territory, and that for the 
red men only. On the former point the House resolution of December 
27, 1825,* was especially explicit, and on the latter, an earlier one of 
December 17, 1824.^ There was no mistaking the character of the 
Territory. It was to be " of the same kind and regulated by the same 
rules " as other " Territories of the U. S." Inferentially, then, it was 
to be a State in embryo, which Smyth, of Virginia, seems to have 
deemed constitutionally impossible.*^ Benton, of Missouri, was evi- 
dently of a different opinion, and in his capacity as chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs applied to Calhoun to draft a 
bill that should accord with the recommendations of the President. 
Calhoun did so,^ and the bill passed the Senate on the 23d of 
February,^ but it failed to meet with the concurrence of the House 
of Representatives. 

Under John Quincy Adams the matter came up again, and this 
same Senate bill was taken by the House,^' amended by its Committee 
on Indian Affairs, and referred to Secretary Barbour for sugges- 
tions.'^ Now Barbour, as we learn from Adams's diary, had been, 
like Adams himself, an advocate of incorporation; but about this 
time, when the Creek controversy was confronting him, he changed 
his views and henceforth not only supported removal in its most 
extreme form — i. e., by individuals set free from tribal connections — 
but also the establishment of a great territorial government west of 
the Mississippi. In cabinet meeting Adams, Rush, Southard, and 
Wirt all expressed doubts of the plan, but all finally approved, hav- 
ing nothing better to propose.* 

° Report, Appendix, p. 314. 

" House Journal, 19th Cong., 1st sess., p. 97. 

" ?^iles's Register, vol. 27, p. 271 ; House Journal, 18th Cong. 2d sess. p. 56. 
" Abridgment of Debates, VIII : 221 ; Gales and Seaton's Register I : p. 38. 
« Indian Office Letter Books, Series II, No. 1, pp. 334-335. 
r Gales and Seaton's Register, 1 : 639-645, 649. 
f Id., XIII, Part 2, Appendix, p. 55. 

'I Miscellaneous Files, Indian Office MS. Records ; American State Papers, Indian 
Affairs, II : 646. 

■>■ Diary of J. Q. Adams, February 7, 1826. 



PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE, 1778-1878. 



93 



Barbour's suggestions, in answer to the appeal of the House com- 
mittee, took the form of " a project for a bill," which presented an 
Indian Territory in broad outline and supplied, what earlier measures 
had lacked, an administrative machinery.^ The creation of the 
Territory was not to be immediate, but discretionary with the Presi- 
dent. In due time John Cocke, as chairman of the committee, re- 
ported a bill embodying all the essential particulars of the " project," 
with some minor additions,* but the House did not act upon it. It is 
worthy of mention that in none of the documents was there any 
provision for a Delegate in Congress, although we know, from the 
correspondence that took place between Barbour and Thomas S. 
Hinds, of Kentucky, that the subject was discussed.^' 

The first session of the Twentieth Congress resumed the considera- ^ 
tion of the plan for organizing an Indian Territory, but never got 
beyond the resolution-making stage. Southern men were too anxious 
for prompt removal to care to dillydally with the details of a gov- 
ernmental system. Yet it is significant that the one resolution that 
unmistakably pointed toward an Indian State came from a southern 
man^ from Eepresentative Mitchell, of Tennessee, December 17, 1827.^^ 
Another southerner, however, Wilson Lumpkin, of Georgia, took ex- 
ception to it because, as he remarked when arguing for a substitute, it 
looked too far ahead.^ The administration none the less continued toj 
work in that direction; and when Porter succeeded Barbour as Sec- 
retary of War he took up the subject,'' but with an interest rendered 
somewhat personal by local considerations. McKenney^ and the 

"Gales and Seaton's Register, 11, Part 2, Appendix, pp. 40-43; American State Papers, 
Indian Affairs, II : 646-649 ; Niles's Register, vol. 29, p. 431, 

"Reports of Committees, 23d Cong., 1st sess., Vol. IV., No. 474, pp. 76-78. 
Thomas S. Hinds to Barbour, February 23, 1826, and March 9, 1826, Miscellaneous 
Files, Indian Office MS. Records ; McKenney to Hinds, January 28, 1828, Indian Office 
Letter Books, Series II, No. 4, p. 258. 

<* Gales and Seaton's Register, IV, part 1, p. 820. 

« Ibid., p. 1585. 

f Ibid., Vol. V, appendix, pp. 7-10 ; Niles's Register, Vol. 35, p. 249. 

s A letter from McKenney to Porter, January 31, 1829, reveals something of the plans 
of the two men, McKenney and McCoy : 

" * * * remarks on former grants by Treaty to Indians * * * and to the 
outlets guaranteed to them, to which objections are taken, would be applicable if those 
grants had been made in relation to a Colony, in which relation McCoy considers the 
subject, but being based on the existing relations of the Indians to the U. S. and to 
one another, as Tribes, the extent of country granted to each Tribe, was no less a 
demand of theirs, than was the outlets as these are defined. It was to comply or not 
effect the object of Congress in providing the ways and means to negotiate those 
Treaties. In any new relations which it may be thought proper to adopt for the organi- 
zation of a plan suited to the improvement of those Tribes West of the Miss, or who 
may go there, the existing geographical relations of each to the other would as a 
matter of course have to be so arranged as to fall in with the plan df colonizing the 
whole, and to harmonize in all respects with such new relations. But this could not 
have been effected until the system to which it must have had reference existed. It does 
not yet exist. 

It is my decided opinion, which I respectfully submit, that nothing can preserve our 
Indians, but a plan well matured and suitably sustained, in which they shall be placed 
under a Government, of which they shall form part, and in a Colonial relation to the 



94 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



Eev. Isaac McCoy « were both active in the same enterprise, but Con- 
gress was unresponsive. Indeed, new complications arose which made 
it ahnost impossible for certain sections to view the matter judiciously. 
The Cherokees, fully alive to earlier recognitions of Indian sov- 
ereignty, emphasized their own independence of Georgian jurisdic- 
tion by establishing a republic upon the model of the American. In 
1827 they adopted a constitution.^ They hoped that progressive 
action of this sort would save them from further encroachments. It 
really hastened their downfall. 

During Jackson's presidency Indian removal became a prominent 
political issue; but if it is to be regarded as akin in any sense to 
colonization, the act of 1830,^ which made it a part of the national 
policy, was legislation ill advised, ill considered, and incomplete. 

e Under it the whole body of eastern Indians were to be taken, if 
possible, west of Missouri and left there totally unorganized. Each 
tribe, it is true, was to retain, presumably, its own native govern- 
ment; but had not that government already proved its insufficiency 
by revealing traits incompatible with economic development in the 
United States ? Professions of a desire to civilize the Indians neces- 
sarily presupposed admittance at some future time to citizenship. 
The Cherokees, as we have seen, had already adopted Anglo-Saxon 
^ institutions and all the tribes might be induced to do the same. No 
/ more fitting time for making a change in their political status could 
/ have been found than. this w4ien a change of homes was to be made 
and the old associations cast aside. Removal was in itself icono- 
^ - clastic. "VMiy not have gone a step farther.^ 

Dissatisfaction with the chaotic state of affairs in the Indian 
country in the West came largely from the red men themselves. 
The United States Government had been so untrue to its promises in 
the past that it was obliged to give strong assurances of good faith 
in the future. Notwithstanding this, it was not quite ready to organ 
ize a regular Territory for its wards or to allow them a Delegate 
in Congress, even though the Choctaws in negotiating the treaty of 

United States * * *. In a Colony, of course, the existing divisions among tlie 
Tribes would be superseded by a General Gov't for the whole ; and by a parcelling out 
of the lands among the families * * *. It does appear to me that as a first step 
in this business of Colonization, a general arrangement should be made in regard to the 
lands and the limits — a Gov't simple in its form, but effective, ought to be extended 
over those who have already emigrated * * *." (Indian Office Letter Books, Series 
II, No. 5, pp. 288-291.) 

"Diary of J. Q. Adams, January 22, 1827. 

"Niles's Register, Vol. 33, p. 214; U. S. Ex. Docs., 23d Cong., 2d sess., Vol. Ill, No. 91 ; 
Cherokee Phoenis, February 28, 1828 ; Diary of J. Q. Adams, February 6, 1828. 

<= United States Statutes at Large, 411-412. 
Secretary Eaton seems to have been decidedly in favor of establishing an Indian 
Territory. See Report, November 30, 1829, American State Papers, Military Affairs, 
vol. IV, pp. 154-155. 



PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE, 1778-1878. 



95 



Dancing Kabbit Creek had expressly asked for one.'^ Things came 
to such a pass, however, that Congress was obliged in 1832 to 
authorize ^ the appointment of a commission to investigate inter- 
tribal disputes and to take the sense of the emigrants upon the 
question of their own^ government.^ The commission reported in 
favor of oganization.^ Then began an interesting scene in Congress. 
During several sessions both Houses reported bills f having in view 

« 1. Art. 22. The chiefs of the Choctaws have suggested that theii- people are in a state 
of rapid advancement in education and refinement, and have expressed a solicitude that 
they might have the privilege of a Delegate on the floor of the House of Representatives 
extended to them. The commissioners do not feel that they can, under a treaty stipu- 
lation, accede to the request ; but, at their desire, present it in the treaty, that Congress 
may consider of and decide the application. 2. The Choctaws had drawn up an in- 
strument of cession and removal earlier — that is, in the spring of 1830 — and had spe- 
cifically arranged therein for their ultimate admittance to statehood. (Niles's Register, 
vol. 39, p. 19.) 

^ Act of July 14, 1832. 
Cass in recommending this emphasized the policy of self-government. (Report, Feb- 
ruary 16, 1832, Indian Office Letter Books, Series II, No. 8, pp. 264-291.) 

Instructions to the commissioners, July 14, 1832. (Ibid., No. 9, pp. 32-41.) 

« Reports of Committees, 23d Cong., 1st sess.. Vol. IV, No. 474, pp. 78-103. 

''The series began in 1834 with a bill (House bill No. 490) drafted by the commis- 
sioners of 1832. This bill was ably discussed in the House of Representatives June 25, 
1834, but met with considerable opposition and was eventually postponed to the next 
session of Congress. (Niles's Register, vol. 46, p. 317; House Journal, 23d Cong., 1st 
sess., p. 833; Gales and Seaton's Register, Vol. X, part 4, p. 4763 et seq.) It was accom- 
panied upon its introduction into the House by a most elaborate report (Reports of Com- 
mittees, 23d Cong., 1st sess.. Vol. IV, No. 474) which had been prepared by Represen- 
tative Horace Everett, of Vermont, and is a mine of historical and statistical infor- 
mation. The bill came up again the next session, but was lose in the House. (Gales 
and Seaton's Register, Vol. X, part 4, p. 4779.) 

In 1836 both the Senate and the House considered a bill covering the subject. That 
in the Senate (No. 159) was championed by Tipton, of Ohio, and was accompanied by a 
rep9i-t slightly less exhaustive than that of Everett two years before. (Senate Docs., 
24th Cong., 1st sess.. Vol. Ill, No. 246 ; Senate Journal, p. 220 ; McCoy's Annual Reg- 
ister of Indian Affairs, 1837, p. 68.) No important action was taken upon it, however, 
and in the following December Senator Tipton introduced another bill of like tenor (No. 
15), which met with a like fate. (Senate Journal, pp. 31, 42, 59, 160, 236.) The House 
bill (No. 365) was reported by Everett February 19, 1836. It differed from his earlier 
bill in one very important particular by making the prospective delegate simply a sort 
of resident agent instead of the equivalent of a regular territorial Delegate. C. A. 
Harris, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, nobly supported the project of organization, 
as is well attested by his report to the Acting Secretary of War, B. F. Butler, December 
1, 1836. (Gales and Seaton's Register, XIII, part 2, appendix, pp. 53-65.) 

In 1837 the indefatigable Everett introduced a third bill (No. 901), the principle of 
which found vigorous support in the arguments of Representative Gushing (House Jour- 
nal, 24th Cong., 2d sess.; Gales and Seaton's Register, Vol. XIII, part 2, pp. 1516, 1532), 
and in 1838 a fourth (No. 495) (House Journal, 25th Cong., 2d sess., p. 330). In this 
latter year the Senate also showed great interest in the matter and succeeded in passing 
a bill (No. 75) touching it. "The bill was sent to the House for its concurrence. The 
House had a bill of its own before it, similar in its provisions to the Senate's bill. Both 
bills were reported to the House by the Committee of Indian Affairs, having passed to 
that stage, when they could properly be called up for the final consideration and action 
of the House. In this place, unfortunately for the subject, the bills were left behind 
by the press of other matters. From the large majority in favor of the bill in the Sen- 
ate it is fair to infer that had a decisive vote been taken in the House it would have 
become a law." (McCoy's Annual Register of Indian Affairs, 1838, p. 11.) For a history 
of No. 75 in its various stages, see Niles's Register, vol. 54, pp. 123, 155, 156, 157, 172, 
218 ; Senate Journal, pp. 87, 367, 378, 380-381, 383, 385 ; House Journal, p. 947. 

In the third session of the Twenty-fifth Congress Senator Tipton tried once more to 
get a bill for the organization of an Indian Territory passed. For that purpose he 
reported No. 23 on the 10th of December, 1838, and it was passed by the Senate on the 
25th of February, 1889. (Senate Journal, pp. 35, 57, 272; Niles's Register, vol. 55, p. 
247; Congressional Globe, p. 216.) The House did nothing with it. 



96 



AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



['"the establishment of an Indian Territory — all failed. The trouble 
' was that the several bills were regarded as administration ® measures 
and therefore as not wholly or primarily philanthropic. The earlier 
ones were intended mainly to lead the Cherokees into compliance 
with the policy of removal.^ They were supported by the Georgia 
delegation and opposed by such men as Clay, Calhoun, and John 
Quincy Adams. The chief arguments against them were, that they 
contemplated military rule for an indefinite period, left too much to 
the discretion of the President, and by holding out offices to principal 
men only catered to the prejudices of chiefs., Avho feared that the 

« In the earlier years of his presidency, Jackson paid little or no attention to Indian 
territorial organization. On the contrary, he rather advocated the continuance of tribal 
conditions in their entirety. (Message, December 8, 1829, Richardson, II: 458; message, 
December 6, 1830, ibid., p. 520.) As McKenney confessed to H. L. White, February 26, 
1830, so much emphasis had been placed upon " removal " that it was no wonder the 
public had got the impression that the policy of the Government was " merely a ques- 
tion of removal." (Indian Office Letter Books, Series II, No. 6, pp. 292-294.) As a 
matter of fact, it was not until after the commission of 1832 had made some investi- 
gations that Jackson advised a possible reorganization of the Indian political system. 
(Message, December 3, 1833, Richardson, III : 33.) Subsequent events showed that his 
main objects then were to reduce the expense of the Indian service (Message, December 
1, 1834, ibid., p. 114) and, by the formation of a sort of Indian confederacy under the 
control of the United States, put a check upon intertribal quarrels and hostilities (Mes- 
sage, December 7, 1835, ibid., pp. 172-173). It must be noted, however, that Secretary 
Eaton had recommended the formation of an Indian Territory very much earlier, viz, in 
his report of 1829. 

Van Buren naturally succeeded (Richardson, III : 391, 499, 500-501) to this policy, 
advised thereto by Secretary Poinsett, who said, in his report of December 2, 1837 : 
' " The only duty of the government which remains undischarged is the formation of 
a suitable territorial government, and their admission to such a supervisory care in the 
general legislation as is granted by the laws to other territories of the United States, 
and for the exercise of which they appear to be sufficiently prepared. 

" The subject is confessedly difficult and embarrassing ; but the bill introduced into 
congress at the last session, and partially acted upon, would seem to ofCer a fair prospect 
of success, and to secure to these Indians the enjoyment of all the advantages of free 
government which the necessity of stretching over them the protecting arm of the Gov- 
ernment will admit * * *." (Niles's Register, vol. 53, p. 336.) 

" The Cherokee Nation, divided on the subject of removal, was also divided on that of 
territorial organization. One faction seemed very desirous of having the promise and 
the prospect of an Indian State (Memorial to Congress, 1834, Cherokee Emigration 
Papers, Indian Office MS. Records), and most probably that faction was the one that 
secured the article in the treaty of New Echota, which provided for a Delegate in the 
House of Representatives. Concerning that article, John Mason, jr.. United States 
special agent to the Cherokees, 1837, said : 

" There, Cherokees, in your new country, you will be far beyond the limits or juris- 
diction of any State or Territory ; the country will be yours, yours exculsively. * * * 
There, finally, Cherokees, to give permanency to your institutions aiad to secure the 
peace and prosperity of your nation, you will be entitled to a delegate in the House of 
Representatives of the United States, and thus be considered a member of this great 
confederacy, with a full right to its protection and a full participation in all its advan- 
tages and blessings." (Ex. Docs., 25th Cong., 2d sess.. Vol. V. No. 82, p. 5: No. 99, 
pp. 33-35.) 

The sentiments of an opposing Cherokee faction were communicated to the House of 
Representatives by Secretary Poinsett May 21, 1838, with the following indorsement 
from himself : 

" As the delegation [Messrs. Ross, Edw. Gunter, R. Taylor, Jas. Brown, Sam'l 
Gunter, Situwakee, Elijah Hicks, and White Path] expressed their fears that a form 
of government might be imposed which they were neither prepared for nor desirous of, 
the assurance is hereby repeated, that no form of government will be imposed upon the 
Cherokees without the consent of the whole nation, given in council, nor shall their 
country be erected into a territory without such previous concurrence." (Ex. Docs., 
25th Cong., 2d sess,, Vol. X, No. 376.) 



PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE, 1778-1878. 



97 



abolition of tribal governments would mean a diminution of their 
power. Some southern men took issue on the color line, announced 
themselves as opposed on principle to a prospective Indian State, 
and declared a negro State would be just as proper and to them just 
as acceptable. 

The title of these several bills — the preservation of the Indians and 
the protection of the w^estern frontier — olfers a possible clue to the 
underlying motive of the Government. The motley crowd of In- 
dians, predisposed, by reason of their being advanced each to a dif- 
ferent stage of civilization, to quarrel among themselves, were a 
menace to the peace of adjoining States.^ Many of them, being en- 
raged at the grievous wrong that had been done them, were suspected 
of plotting revenge.^ Remember, these were the years when the 
Texas question was beginning to be agitated. Should war with 
Mexico come on this or on any other pretext, the Indian might find 
his opportunity. Closer military supervision, therefore, under pre- 
tense of giving training in republican self-government, was deemed 
the wisest course. Strange to say, certain army men, consulted as to 
ways of fortifying the frontier, declaimed against the organization 
of the Indian Territory on the ground that the tribes would realize 
the force of the old saying, " In union there is strength."^ 

Action outside of Congress was almost as persistent as within, and 
slightly more successful. McCoy, who surveyed much of the Indian 
land, cooperated with the commissioners of 1832, and for years and 
years argued and pleaded for an Indian State. He it was who sub- 
mitted the congressional measures to the tribes, and, in a majority of 
cases, secure their concurrence.^ So interested was he, forsooth, that 

« Niles's Register, vol. 54, p. 8 ; Ex. Docs., 25th Cong., 2d sess., Vol. VIII, No. 278, 
p. 20 ; Vol. IX, Nos. 311 and 434. 

" Niles's Register, vol. 53, pp. 340, 384. 

<^ In addition to the reports of army men, there is a good deal of material for and 
against organization which was collected by L. F. Linn and A. G. Harrison in the sum- 
mer of 1837. G. P. Kingsbury, writing to the former of these two men from Fort Coffee, 
September 10, 1837, argued for a single superintendent, or governor, in the Indian coun- 
try, and, in addition, said : 

'* Every two years there should be a general council or congress to consist of a dele- 
gation of all the different tribes of Indians. * * * This grand council will be con- 
sidered a great event in the lives of the Indians, and their principal warriors will be 
very desirous of being sent as delegates to it. * * * In a short time, if such should 
be the policy of the Government, they might, at this general council, elect delegates 
to Congress, which would open a new field of ambition to them * * *." 

Agent John Dougherty also recommended a single superintendent and had practically 
the same opinion about organization. " The expediency," said he, " of organizing an 
Indian Territory at this time, with a view to bringing the wild Indians under legal 
restrictions, is, in my opinion, very doubtful ; before this can be done, they must be 
taught to work, read, and write, and be weaned from the chase." This course persist- 
ently followed would, in a few years, permit a beginning at self-government and render 
the Indians " capable of furnishing a representative in the United States councils 
* * (Ex. Docs., 25th Cong., 2d sess., Vol. VIII, No. 276.) 

McCoy's Annual Register of Indian Affairs, 1837, 1838; Niles's Register, vol. 53, pp. 
67-68, 336; Richardson, III : 391 ; House Reports, oOth Cong., 2d sess.. Vol. Ill, No. 736, 
pp. 7. 8. 



58833— VOL 1—08 7 



98 



AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



lie worked in advance of actual instructions and so far anticipated 
matters as to lay off a federal district, beyond the State line of Mis- 
souri, which was to be the seat of the future Indian government. He 
claimed to have done this under the known sanction of Secretary 
Eaton.« It Avould seem that this approached the confederacy idea 
rather than the territorial, but the two ideas were always associated 
together in the debates of the time, and in practice could be only 
gradually disassociated. Both McCoy and Eaton must have realized 
this, for both had a practical knowledge of the Indians and knew 
perfectly well how impossible it would be to consolidate widely dif- 
fering tribes without going through preliminary stages. 

When the fraudulent treaty of New Echota was negotiated with 
the Cherokees, the idea of a Delegate in Congress was revived,^ but 
it proved only an empty promise. Removal accomplished, all else 
was of secondary importance, so that as far as entrance to the Ameri- 
can Union was concerned, this leading tribe of Indians was no far- 
ther advanced in 1835 than it had been in 1785. It had now two 
treaties to its account, in one particular of identically the same 
value, for both made representation dependent upon congressional 
action. Fifty years showed absolutely no progress in the matter of 
political concessions. Van Buren's Administration opened and closed 

°- " In 1832, when Secretary Eaton retired from office, he was about to instruct the 
Superintendent of Surveys, then in his employ, to set apart a portion of the unappro- 
priated lands, in a central part of the contemplated Territory, for the Seat of Govern- 
ment of the Territory, should it become organized. It was thought advisable that a few 
miles square should he reserved from cession to any tribe, in which reservation all the 
tribes should have a common interest, on which should be erected all public buildings, 
and should be settled all persons whose offices made it necessary for them to reside at 
or near them. * * *Nothing further was done in relation to this matter, until 1837, 
when orders were issued from the Department of Indian Affairs to the Superintendent 
of Surveys, to select and report a place suitable for the above objects. The selection 
was accordingly made of a valuable tract, of about seven miles square on the Osage 
River. It is nearly equi-distant from the Northern and Southern extremities of the 
Territory, and a little over sixteen miles West of the State of Missouri." (McCoy's 
Annual Register of Indian Affairs, 1838, p. 18.) 

"The influence which the promise of congressional representation had upon the nego- 
tiation of the treaty of New Echota may be inferred from Butler's report of Decem- 
ber 3, 1836, which reads as follows : 

*' In the late treaty with the Cherokees East of the Mississippi, it is expressly stipu- 
lated, that they shall be entitled to a delegate in the House of Represenatives when- 
ever Congress shall make provision for the same. It is not to be doubted that the hopes 
thus held out to these tribes [Choctaws and Cherokees] had an important influence 
in determining them to consent to emigrate to their new homes in the West * * * 
And, at as early a day as circumstances will allow, the expectations authorized by the 
passage above quoted from the treaties with the Choctaws and Cherokees should be 
fulfilled. Indeed, from the facts stated by the Commissioner, it is scarcely to be 
doubted that the Choctaws are already in a condition to justify the measure. The daily 
presence of a native delegate on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United 
States, presenting, as occasion may require, to that dignified assembly, the interests 
of his people, would, more than any other single act, attest to the world and to the 
Indian tribes the sincerity of our endeavors for their preservation and happiness. In 
the successful issue of these endeavors, we shall find a more precious and durable acces- 
sion to the glory of our country than by any triumph we can achieve in arts or in 
^rins * * (Gales and Seaton's Register, Vol, XIII, pt, 2, appendix, pp, 11-21.) 



PROPOSALS FOR AN INDIAN STATE^ 1778-1878. 



99 



with nothing done for Indian statehood." Friends of the measure 
were bitterly disappointed. The Rev. J. F. Schermerhorn, one of the 
commissioners of 1832 and the chief negotiator of the treaty of New 
Echota, voiced the sentiment of many when he made in 1839 his 
personal plea to Poinsett, virtually saying that he would never have 
Avorkecl so hard for removal had he not honestly believed that terri- 
torial organization would come with its completion.'^ 

Occasionally during the next three decades individuals found time 
and opportunity to discuss the Indian situation. Meanwhile the 
great question of establishing a territory for the tribes found favor, 
or would have found favor had it been sufficiently agitated, with at 
least two of President Tyler's Secretaries of War, viz, John C. Spen- 
cer ^ and William Wilkins.^ In the session of 1845^6 .Congress 
took up the subject again, moved thereto by a stirring memorial from 
a missionary association. On that occasion the House Committee on 
Indian Affairs went so far as to report a bill ^ defining such a terri- 
tory, but it was not acted upon. In 1848, the safety of Texas in view, 
Representative Mcllvane, from the Indian Committee, made an ex- 
haustive report,'^ quite on a par with Everett's and Tipton's of earlier 
years, in which he urged territorial organization, but he urged in 
vain. He also reported a bill embracing the general principles of 
the bill of 1834." ^ 

In 1851 James Duane Doty addressed the President on the subject 
of making a very necessary change in the Indian political status, 
but Fillmore w^as most likely not altogether in sympathy with the 
project, for, as Representative, he had been uncertain whether to sup- 
port or to oppose one of the territorial organization bills ^ and now 
shifted the responsibility of answering Doty's letter to the Secretary 

" Van Buren, however, did in his first two annual messages recommend the establish- 
ment of some simple form of government for the emigrant tribes. See Richardson III : 
391, 501. 

"Miscellaneous Files, 1839-1841, Indian Office MS. Records; Abel, "Indian Consoli- 
dation West of the Mississippi River." p. 393, note b. 

<^ " The plan of something like a territorial government for the Indians has been 
suggested. The object is worthy of the most deliberate consideration of all who take 
an interest in the fate of this hapless race." (Report Nov. 26, 1842, Ex. Docs.. 27th 
Cong. 3d sess., Vol. I, p. 189. 

" In the course of the progress under our mora! enterprise, for their civilization, they 
must eventually attain the sagacity to look out for individual and social rights, and 
that degree of general intelligence to entitle them to the full extension of all the privi- 
leges of American citizens. When that time shall arrive there will be no obstacle to 
political association by reason of any natural or acquired repugnance to the blood of 
the original American." (Report Nov. 30, 1844, Ex. Docs., 28th Cong. 2d sess., Vol. I, 
p. 125. 

House Journal, 29th Cong., 1st sess., p. 995. 
r House Reports, 30th Ceng., 2d sess.. Vol. Ill, No. 736. 
fibid., pp. 11-14. 

See his letter, printed as an appendix to this article. 
* Gales and Seaton's Register, Vol. X. part 4, p. 4779 ; Niles's Register, vol. 46, p. 
307 ; House Journal, 23d Cong., 2d sess., p. 424. 



100 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



of the Interior,^ who passed it on to the Commissioner of Indian 
Affairs, who ignored it. Boty argued more particularly for the prop- 
erty and political rights of the individual Indian and cited the expe- 
rience of the Brothertown Indians in Wisconsin to prove his case.^ 
In 1853 Schoolcraft manifested some slight interest in the general 
subject of Indian welfare, but opposed the formation of a Territory, 
since, like Doty, he deemed the political consolidation of the tribes 
impracticable. To him a series of small colonies^ from the Rockies 
to the Pacific/ presumably like the reservation farms of California, 
would be a better solution of the Indian problem. The fact is, the 
time was not propitious for organization. The United States Gov- 
ernment was even then breaking away from the rash promises it had 
made in the twenties and thirties; for it was looking forward, as 
was evidenced in the consideration of the question of Wyandot cit- 
izenship, to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, to the passage of which organi- 
zation along the original lines, i. e., southward from the Platte, 
might have proved an insurmountable obstacle. 

After the civil war, when the Federal Government was calling the 
Five Civilized Tribes to account for their recent alliance with the 
southern Confederacy,^ it made a desperate effort to force territorial 
organization upon them ; but they stood out firmly and unanimousl}^ 

« Alexander H. H. Stuart. 
It is well to remember that from the very earliest years of the United States Gov- 
ernment individual ownership, or allotment in severalty, had been often suggested as 
preeminently the best way to bring about the civilization of the Indians. Naturally it 
would have involved incorporation or the extension of State laws over the tribes, since 
it was usually offered as the alternative of removal. 

" " The colonization plan of 1825 is the best one if properly carried out. It has worked 
well and is only at fault because it is not from character of Indians fully carried out. 
They will not act together. They hate union. They distrust each other. They cling 
to tribal gov't — the bane of their whole system from first to last." (H. R. Schoolcraft 
to Robert McClelland, 1853 — Schoolcraft Unbound Miscellaneous Papers.) 

<* " I think there is room for eight states inclusive of Minnesota, Oregon, and Wash- 
ington between the Miss, and the Pacific & each of them should I think have an Indian 
district within it in their own latitude on which the Indians should be subject to. our 
laws civil & criminal, to be administered, however, by specially appointed judges 

* * ' (Same to same, ibid.) 

« Up to the time of the Mexican war suggestions were quite often made having in view 
the surrendering of the western territory to the Indians. Senator Dickerson, of New 
Jersey, once said that *' the British Government would probably readily join with the 
Government of the United States in any measure that might be necessary to secure 
the whole territory claimed by both parties West of the Rocky Mountains to the present 
possessors of the soil." (Debate on the Oregon bill, February 26, 1825, Gales and Seaton's 
Register, I : 694-695.) About two months before Representative Smyth, of Virginia, 
had proposed " providing for two tiers of States west of the Mississippi and giving the 
Indians an unchangeable boundary beyond." (Abridgment of Debates, VIII: 211.) As 
a matter of fact, though, the pioneers had decidedly other views with respect to the occu- 
pation of the western country. Note, for instance, the following extract from a letter 
dated St. Louis, June 16, 1841. 

* * * Your name is well known in the mountains by many of your old friends 
who would be glad to join the standard of there country and make a clean sweepe of 
what is called the Origon Teritory : That is to say clear it of British and Indians 

* * (Miscellaneous Files, Indian Oflflce MS. Records.) 

T In no instance was an entire tribe in league with the seceding States; but that fact 
was not taken into account when the question of confiscating tribal lands came up. 



PROPOSALS FOR AN TNDTAK STATE, 1778-1R78. 



101 



against it," yet in their position as conquered rebels ])erforce had 
finally to accept a halfway measure in the shape of ;i ^eiuM-al council.'' 
The Indian understanding of this was well expressed in 1874 when 
territorial bills were before Congress and the Indians were memorial- 
izing against them. " We do hereby most solemnly and emphatically 
declare that the articles of the treaties of 1866, do not authorize the 
formation by Congress of a Territorial government of the United 
States over the Indians of the Indian Territory, On the contrary 
the agreements on our part in assenting to the establishment of said 
conncil was entered into for the very purpose of obviating the alleged 
necessity of such a Territorial government. * * * We held that 
that country was exclusively an Indian country, as contradistin- 
guished from a Territory of the United States, and we treated upon 
that basis * * ^ The general council indicated was organized 
at Okmulgee, in the Creek country, in 1869,^ and formed of itself a 
constituent assembly, drawing up and provisionally adopting a con- 
stitution, which, however, failed of ratification by the Indians. 

With the incoming of Grant as President, no time was lost in urg- \ 
ing territorial government for the Indians, notwithstanding the fact / 
that the several treaties of 1866 had stipulated explicitly that the 
legislation of Congress in the direction of a civil administration for 
the Indian country should not interfere with or annul tribal organiza- 
tion, rights, laws, privileges, customs. The exigencies of the times 
demanded a change, however, and, as Grant said in his first annual 
message, economic growth, as seen in the building of large railways 
that brought the white settlements ever nearer to the red, made it ex- 
pedient.^ The application of the suggestion to the country south of 
Kansas was not specific until two years later (1871), when Grant 
recommended the establishment of a Territory there as a possible 

" Protest of Southern Creek Delegation, March 18, 1866, Creek Files, 1860-1869, Indian 
Office MS. Records ; Senator Patterson s Report, February 11, 1879, Senate Reports, 45th 
Cong., 3d sess.. Vol. Ill, No. 744. 

"Article VII, Seminole Treaty, March 21, 1866, 14 United States Statutes at Large, 
p. 758. Article VIII, Choctaw and Chickasaw Treaty, April 28, 1866, ibid., p. 772. 
Article X, Creek Treaty, June 14, 1866, ibid., p. 789. Article XII, Cherokee Treaty, July 
19, 1866, ibid., p. 802. 

Memorial to President Grant, February 9, 1874, included in Patterson's Report, p. 376. 

^ The Indians chafed under the delay in organizing the general council, as is indi- 
cated by the following letter from Superintendent L. N. Robinson to the Acting Com- 
missioner of Indian Affairs, Charles E. Mix, September 26, 1868 : 

" There is a general desire on the part of the various tribes in this Territory, for the 
speedy organization of the General Coimcil provided for in their several treaties of 1866; 
and much Impatience is manifested at the delay of such organization. Under the provi- 
sions of the treaties, the census of the tribes having been completed * * * , it is 
mandatory on the superintendent of Indian Affairs to ' publish and declare to each tribe 
the number of members to which they shall be entitled ' and to appoint the time and 
place for the first meeting of said council. 

" It is the generally expressed wish of the various tribes that I shall call such session 
to meet on the first Monday in December next, and that date meets my approval 
* * * ." (Southern Superintendency Files, 1867-68.) 

« Richardson, VII : 39. 



102 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



" means of collecting most of the Indians now between the Missouri 
and the Pacific and south of the British possessions into one Terri- 
tory or one State." ° That he had not a mixed State in mind is seen 
from his fourth annual message,^ his policy being definite, to collect 
as many Indians as he could and protect them from the incursions of 
white men. Later messages in his second administration emphasized 
this point of view;^ but sentiment in the country at large steadily 
drifted toward the exclusion of the old notion. Thus the resolutions 
of the National Commercial Convention at St. Louis in 1872 pointed 
unerringly toward a mixed State. Bills in Congress, for the most 
part, did likewise — hence the determined opposition of the Indians.^ 
During this time also the separate organization of Oklahoma came 
to be talked of and no pretense was ever made that Oklahoma was to 
be exclusively Indian. After 1878 there was practically no thought 
whatsoever of allowing the aborigines a separate existence as an in- 
tegral part of the Union, and the spasmodic efforts of a hundred years 
had failed. 

" Richardson, VII : p. 152. 

Mbid., p. 200. 

" Ibid., pp. 252, 300. 

'J House Mis. Docs., No. 42, Vol. II, 42d Cong., 3d sess. 

e The most prominent of the Indian protests against territorial organization are the 
following : The Cherokee delegation to E. S. Parker, January 14, 1870, Cherokee Files, 
1869-70 ; the Creek delegation to President Grant, June 4, 1870, and inclosures. Creek 
Files, 1870-1872 ; the Cherokee, Muscogee, and Seminole delegations to the President and 
people of the United States, June 4, 1870, Southern Superintendency Files, 1869-70 ; 
memorial of the Choctaw Nation, referred January 31, 1872, Senate Mis. Docs., 42d Cong., 
2d sess.. Vol. I, No. 53 ; protest of the Cherokee and Creek delegations, referred March 3, 
1873, House Mis. Docs., 42d Cong., 3d sess.. Vol. Ill, No. 110; message of Will P. Ross, 
principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, November 5, 1873, Cherokee Files, 1872-1874 ; 
protest of the general Indian council, December 6, 1873, Senate Reports, 45th Cong., 3d 
sess.. Vol. Ill, No. 744, pp. 379-381; message of William Bryant, principal Chief of the 
Choctaw Nation, January 20, 1874, Choctaw Files, 1873-1876 ; memorial from the Choc- 
taws, Cherokees, Creeks, and Seminoles, April 22, 1878, House Mis. Docs., 46th Cong., 
1st sess.. Vol. I, No. 13 ; resolutions of the general council of the Choctaw Nation, No- 
vember 5, 1878, Senate Mis. Docs., 45th Cong,, 3d sess.. Vol. I, No. 52, pp. 2, 3 ; memorial 
of I. L. Garvin, principal Chief of the Choctaw Nation, December 24, 1878, ibid. ; protest 
of the Cherokee, Creek, and Choctaw delegations, May 8, 1879, House Mis. Docs., 46th 
Cong., 1st sess., Vol. I, No. 13, 



APPENDIX. 



Letter of James Duane Doty. 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, Jany 20*^, 1851. 

To His Excellency Millard Fillmore 

President dc. dc. dc. 

Sir, 

The question of the necessity or propriety of the removal of the Indians now 
residing in various sections of the North Western States, and who are partly 
or loholly civilized, to the country West of the Mississippi river, is one of such 
importance to them, to the Government, and to humanity that you will pardon 
me, I hope, for asking its consideration at this moment. 

For several years past it has been held, that the presence of those Indians 
who are civilized in the Country occupied by those who are wild, would have a 
beneficial effect upon the latter in civilizing and christianizing them also. The 
facts I believe do not confirm this opinion. 

Ought we not therefore now — if not heretofore — to inquire what is the effect 
which this removal has upon themselves? My observation has been in regard 
to the Northern Indians, that it entirely checks their further advancement in 
the arts of civilized life, and tends directly to return them to the Hunter state. 

The white man has ever promised this race since his first occupation of this 
continent, that when they became agriculturalists and adopted his habits, they 
should be entitled to enjoy the same civil and political rights equally with him- 
self. The power to confer these rights, it is supposed, is with the Government 
of the United States ; and believing the time has arrived when their condition, 
if not our own honor, demands the execution of this power, on their behalf I 
would respectfully apply for the preparation in the proper Department of a plan 
by which, under the authority of law, they may individually purchase and hold 
Real Estate, their blood be made heritable, and all the rights of Citizenship, in 
some form and at some period — depending perhaps upon their progress in civili- 
zation — be conferred upon them. 

They have justly complained that under the present system, when they have 
obtained to a considerable extent the knowledge and habits of the Whites, and 
have lost the art and taste for the chase, they are excluded from the society 
of our citizens as members of the same commonwealth, and are not permitted 
to aspire to any of the stations under Government. Life, for them, has no 
longer any object: they have no social or political associations with us; they 
regard themselves with contempt, as they are regarded by those who continue 
in the Hunters state ; and they sink in despondency. 

The only exception to this view with which I am acquainted is that of the 
Brothertown Indians in Wisconsin, who, by authority of an act of Congress 
divided the land which they had previously held in common equally among the 
members of the Tribe, and received patents individually therefor from the 
President, became Citizens, and have since — and now exercise all of the rights 
and privileges of American Citizens. They hold offices in the Town and County 

103 



104 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



under the State govern meut, and some of them have been elected members of 
the Legislature and served in that station with great credit. Ten years have 
elapsed since this Act passed and yet there are very few cases of sales of their 
land to white men. 

The following are the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin 
on the subject of suffrage by persons of the Indian Blood : 

It has been proposed to establish an " Indian Territory " beyond the white 
settlements to which the remnants of the numerous Tribes in the North 
Western States may be removed. 

This can only be regarded as an effort to preserve the Indians as a distinct 
race — a continuation of the plan now pursued. 

The country lying west of the Territory of Minnesota, between the Coteau 
de Prairie and Missouri river, appears to be the most favorably situated for 
this object. But even there to permanently insure their civilization, it will 
be necessary to grant the right to individual Indians, who are disposed to 
settle as agriculturists, to acquire, and to transmit to their heirs, the title to 
real estate. There can no longer be a doubt among men who have resided 
many years in the country occupied by the Northern Nations that no valuable 
or permanent improvement can be made in the condition of these people, unless 
this provision is made. 

We cannot of course contemplate the formation of such a State without 
calculating its advantages to the Indians, and to the white men ; as also its 
cost, and its future relations, to this government, and to the other States. 

The question is therefore presented — whether it is best to permit them to 
remain in their native country to which they are strongly attached, or the 
country where they now dwell, with the prospective right to become citizens 
and to enjoy the same civil and political privileges as ourselves ; or to occupy 
a State by themselves, disconnected with the Whites if possible, with their 
own government and laws, — but dependent upon the Government of the United 
States, — and forming a community which must be composed of Tribes not here- 
tofore friendly with each other, and of Individuals some of whom are civilized 
and others not? 

The interest which I feel in the welfare and improved condition of these 
People, arising perhaps from a very long residence and extensive personal 
acquaintance with them, must be my apology for the above suggestions which 
I have ventured to make upon the present and future condition of this Race. 

With great respect, I have the honor to be. 
Your Excellency's Most obedient servant 



James Duane Doty. 



(Miscellaneous Files, 1851-1854, Indian Office MS. Records.) 





^^^^ 








0 






^^.-^^ ^^^^^ 











_0 ^ aT^^^ '<^^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

\p y N V . u e , ^ <^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

^ <0 <v * °^ ^ V ^1.^' Treatment Date: Marcli 2010 




PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 







- . o 






^^^^ 

P,* / ^. ^ 

DOBBS BROS. * f n o ^ ^0 %^ " e , ^ 

1AY 69V \/ »^ 




\0 




A 




